The Thesis of Cassiciacum by Most Rev. Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers O.P. (1898-1988 RIP), an eminent French Dominican theologian who advised on the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was confessor to Pope Pius XII, and was the main author behind the Ottaviani intervention, holds that the Vatican II (1962-1965 under John XXIII and Paul VI) modernist robber council has imposed a new and false religion upon the Church’s institutions.
thethesis.us
The Thesis does not argue that the “Vatican II popes” are false popes because they are heretics, as some contend, but rather because they intend to impose heresy on the universal Church. The Thesis argues that it is impossible for the pope and the Roman Catholic Church to universally impose a false religion, since this would destroy the Church’s unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity; the imposition of false doctrines is defection, and defection cannot be ascribed to the true Church of Christ.
@prevatican2catholicshow Catholics have a problem with many parts of the Bible. I was a catholic until I started reading the Bible. All I can say to that is I put my faith in the word of God and not in man. When I give someone the truth and they don't accept it, I dust off my feet and go to the next house and pray they heed the warning just as Jesus says to do.
You probably left the Novus Ordo, which is fake Catholicism. Let me know when you find the instruction of sola scriptura in the Bible, and who has the authority to remove Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Machabees from the Bible which contain inconvenient anti-Protestant doctrine.
When we see that many of those whongo to the SSPX are already Catholic and have to be recatechized, this accounts for this issues. The reality though is that when they do become properly instructed, that is what sets them apart from the former ecclesia dei/diocesan TLM goers.
@@prevatican2catholicshowwhat is your definition of "properly catechized?" In this, I have another sincere question--is there OT precedent for a sede position. Where the Master of the Palace office was left vacant?
A properly catechized Catholic would know that the Church cannot defect or teach harmful doctrine ever. They would know it's non-Catholic to sift through the magisterium to pick and choose what doctrine they like or recognize someone as the pope and then ignore everything he says. In terms of precedence, we are in unprecedented times but the Cassiciacum Thesis analyzes the situation with no contradiction in timeless Catholic and Thomistic principles.
Using waffers as the body of Christ is already a BLASPHEMY ! JesusChrist said BREAD not Waffers i wish roman church to come back to the Orthodox faith before it is to late
@@prevatican2catholicshow You are the SCHISMATICS whom changed the Holy Creed The councils never took place in Rome but in the Greek city of Nicea because rome was NEVER the Capital of Christianity and never will be ! Even the document is in Greek not in latin the language of the Assains of Christ ! You might be bad because JesusLord was here in Egypt with the Theotokos and Saint Joshep but they never visited the city of rome because it was worthless however he sent some Apostles and you murdered them then and now you wanna claim to be the succesors of the Apostles you murdered 🤣 HERETIC pagans !
Superb - thank you so much, dear Nikhil. Truly happy to finally have had the chance to watch this - going to have to watch again, so many details! Hope you get to have Father on again very soon - he explains things so thoroughly. May God bless all your efforts.
You sound Protestant. Since when did the faithful need to have sophisticated explanations of our crisis. I simply go where I see Catholics being Catholics.
Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-49 A.D. Council Fathers - 1431-1449 A.D. Then, when they realized that the aforesaid emperor and patriarch and others were already on their way to us for this work of holy union, they tried to lay another wicked snare to catch this divine project. That is, they produced against us a sacrilegious sentence of suspension from the administration of the papacy. Finally, those leaders of scandal, very few in number, most of them of the lowest rank and reputation, in their intense hatred of true peace, piling iniquity on top of iniquity lest they should enter into the justice of the Lord, when they saw that the grace of the holy Spirit was working in us towards union with the Greeks, swerving away from the straight line into paths of error, held a so-called session on 16 May last asserting that they were obeying certain decrees, although these were passed at Constance by only one of the three obediences after the flight of John XXIII, as he was called in that one obedience, at a time of schism. Alleging obedience to those decrees, they proclaimed three propositions which they term truths of the faith, seemingly to make heretics of us and all princes and prelates and other faithful and devout adherents of the apostolic see. The propositions are the following. “The truth about the authority of a general council, representing the universal church, over a pope and anyone else whatsoever, declared by the general councils of Constance and this one of Basel, is a truth of the catholic faith. The truth that a pope cannot by any authority, without its consent, dissolve a general council representing the universal church, legitimately assembled for the reasons given in the above-mentioned truth or for any of them, or prorogue it to another time or transfer it from place to place, is a truth of the catholic faith. Anyone who persists in opposing the aforesaid truths is to be considered a heretic.” In this, those utterly pernicious men, masking their malice with the rosy colour of a truth of the faith, gave to the council of Constance an evil and mischievous meaning completely opposed to its true teaching, imitating in this the teaching of other schismatics and heretics who always amass for their support fabricated errors and impious dogmas drawn from their perverse interpretation of the divine scriptures and the holy fathers. Finally, completely perverting their mind and turning away their eyes from looking to heaven or remembering righteous judgments, after the manner of Dioscorus and the infamous synod of Ephesus, they proceeded to a declaratory sentence of deprivation, as they claimed, from the dignity and office of the supreme apostolate, a poisonous and execrable pronouncement involving an unforgivable crime. Here we will take the tenor of that sentence, abhorrent to every pious mind, as sufficiently expressed. They omitted nothing, as far as was in their power, that might overthrow this incomparable good of union. O miserable and degenerate sons! O wicked and adulterous generation! What could be more cruel than this impiety and iniquity? Can anything more detestable, more dreadful and more mad be imagined? Earlier on they were the ones who said that nothing better, nothing more glorious and fruitful had ever been seen or heard of in the Christian people, from the very birth of the church, than this most holy union, and that to further it there should be no contention about the place, but rather to achieve it the wealth of this world as well as body and soul should be hazarded, proclaiming this aloud to the whole world and urging the Christian people to it, as their decrees and letters fully state. But now they persecute exactly this as furiously and as impiously as they can, so that the devils of the entire world seem to have flocked together to that conventicle of brigands at Basel. So far almighty God has not allowed their iniquity and its lying inconsistencies to prevail. But seeing that they are striving with all their strength to bring it to success, even to the point of setting up the abomination of desolation in God’s church, we can in no way pretend to ignore these things without most serious offence to God and imminent danger of confusion and abomination in God’s church. In keeping with our pastoral office, at the urging of many who are fired with zeal for God, we wish to put a stop to such evils and, as far as we can, to take appropriate and salutary measures to eliminate from God’s church this execrable impiety and most destructive pestilence.
God bless Rev. Luke Petrizzi. o/// By the way, those "Bitten Apple" wifi earbuds will end up frying his brain unfortunately....Please get them out of your head Rev. Luke Petrizzi.
Given we don't have a Pope is it truly objectively honest to distance yourselves from other Sede and Resistance groups? All 3 divisions can point to Church approved Theologians who support their position. The longer this goes on it becomes more abundantly clear none of us have an answer this 60 + year emergency.
The problem is there is no common theological ground. "Recognize and Resist" is plain non-Catholic. "Totalism" destroys apostolicity, the legal order and reduces the Church to mob rule. The Thesis offers an explanation for the beginning and gives a solution for the end based on traditional Catholic theological principles.
If your Novus Ordo priest has a doubtful ordination because he was "ordained" by a bishop of the invalid 1968 episcopal rite, how is he going to validly consecrate the Host? You need a true priest with valid Holy Orders. Absolutely Null and Utterly Void, The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration - Rev. Anthony Cekada mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
Interesting use of confirmation bias, condemning the same thing the "Cassiciacum Thesis" proponents do, and just like all confirmation bias cases , you are continually patching and obfuscated as errors are exposed. Another very common case of this is science, for example the Big Bang, where numerous new mathematical equations and "thought experiments" have been added over the years compiling a mountain of scientific papers, books, and other publications so that the original error becomes lost. So here we have in place of math, many theological acrobats Also interesting because this tactic is the main tool used by modernists It is an interesting point for comparison when you examine pre-Vatican II encyclicals, even the longer ones were still to the point and easy to understand, they were clear in the problem and the solution, many were in question / answer format So when you deviate from this format and making it so things appear so obfuscated that you need a theological degree to understand it , are you telling the lay person just to trust you and if so why did the true Church not require it ?
No, Pope Honorius was a real pope who didn't teach heresy, as believed by some. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is a false pope, possessing only a valid election, but no authority from Christ because of his objective intention to spread heresy. None of the Vatican 2 popes were real popes.
Indeed we have no authority to make a legal declaration, but we are obliged by our faith to reject new doctrines that have been previously condemned by the magisterium. Also, you're not being very ecumenical according to Vatican 2, shouldn't you encourage me to follow my conscience?
Excellent. Appreciate this presentation a lot. One observation: How come Nature supersedes the Bible on the centrality of Earth? Moses wrote the first five books, was highly educated in Pharoah's household, knew science, architecture, astronomy, languages. Many historic, archeological, health and scientific truths in the Bible have been substantiated. Yet regarding Galileo, suddenly most stumble in trying to remove the shock everyone in those times felt about Holy Scripture being refuted. Galileo actually wrote that his theory could not be proven. The book Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right even has NASA and Einstein back up Scripture! Have you read it?
From a historical perspective, the heliocentric model was held as one of two possibilities until the late 1800s. Tycho Brahe had a model that answered all Galileo's objections, but had the Earth in its proper place (the center). Both were "scientifically acceptable" until anti-Catholic academics in the post-French Revolution eras needed to pull the plug on a Christian worldview (literally). Einstein's "general theory" of relativity was developed to explain heliocentricism, but it was insufficient...so he developed the "special theory", which is proof of geocentrism. Despite his flakiness in terms of the NO being Catholic, Dr. Robert Sungenis is good on this, as was the late Dr. Wolfgang Smith.
Absurd.I would worry more about the heretic priests and religious who are running amuck in the Catholic Church.I guess you think they are well versed in Catholic teaching!
@@prevatican2catholicshow Because Catholics are not in a position to formally declare Francis a heretic.That is up to a future Pope or council.I like Archbishop Lefebvre and many other Catholics do not believe the Pope has the authority to ban the Tridentine Mass.If the Pope bans the recitation of the Rosary should we obey?If the Pope forbids the use of Latin in the Mass despite what Vatican 2 clearly said should they obey?If the Pope told all religious not to wear habits should they obey?No No No
Simply incorrect, and a false understanding of the power of a true Pope. Lefebvrism is a maddening neo-Gallican position. "A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions. The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation... Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend" Fr. Anthony Cekada. (www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum) Vatican 2 is the _main issue_ , and needs to be dumped. thethesis.us
0:00 Intro 0:20 Start 1:59 Pope Formosus and the "Cadaver Synod" 5:07 Council of Constance and rejected decrees 19:43 Pope John XXII and the Beatific Vision Controversy 27:48 The Arian Crisis and the false equivalence with today 35:32 R&R using arguments from enemies of the Church to argue their position 39:07 St. Jerome's famous quote on the Arian Crisis 42:03 Does sedevacantism destroy the visibility of the Church? 47:55 R&R supporters don't know what the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is 50:54 Just War theory and the Crusades 54:10 On being Galileo treated pretty nicely by the Church 58:38 Wrapping Up 59:57 Outro
I think Fathers understanding of being a legal or undeclared heretic is a little underwhelming. An undeclared heretic is still a heretic (a non catholic) but he needs to be canonically tried in order for the material element to be fulfilled in being a formal heretic in the eyes of the church. Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, he has publicly denied doctrines of the faith, according to Bachofen, public heresy is the same as notorious heresy. Even with this Bergoglio still maintains his papal elect status because a notorious heretic loses jurisdiction but not his chair or seat (Bachofen et al). Also public defection from the faith can be as small as publicly partcipating and promoting a non catholic sect, according to Ayrinhac (1917 code commentator). I believe in the thesis fyi , just a few critical notes.
@@prevatican2catholicshow thank you for the reply, I have read it before, I think the article clearly defines church teaching better and it is clearer in terminology. I agree 100% with the article. I assume Father was being much more succinct in the video, I think parts of it could confuse people regarding an undeclared heretic but I understand time was a factor. It is a topic that would probably take a whole video to go into the details, maybe a good future episode? Thanks
One of the reasons I am R&R (at least with the post Vatican II Popes before our current anti-Pope "Francis") is because a) there was no formal process of addressing the errors of the V2 Popes done, no Dubia's etc. and b) their heresies could be material rather than formal. Another reason I am not a Sede is Our Lord's promise that He would never abandon His Church...that it would be visible. If the Sede position is correct then the Church has been hidden and obscenely difficult to find and understand for almost 60 years. Until the Church formally defines a process for identifying and removing a heretical Pope that has been validly elected instead of just theologians and saints discussing it, then I try my best to know the Deposit of Faith and follow anyone in the hierarchy who also follows the Deposit. God bless~
All these points are addressed in the Thesis of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, explained in detail on this site: thethesis.us Also read "The Errors of the Recognize and Resist System", by Rev. Damien Dutertre mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf
Regarding material/formal: It is possible for ordinary laity like you and me to be mistaken about a point of doctrine, but it is not possible for clergy to be ignorant of doctrine since that is part of their education and traing in the seminary. It is the pope's duty to pass on and defend the Faith. If the Cardinals elected a man who doesn't know the fundamentals of Catholicism I'd say the election is probably not valid and I'd treat him as a Bergoglio, a doubtful pope.
This doesn't affect validity of orders. Ignorant, badly or untrained (in this case traditional) priests were the subject of a famous article by Father Anthony Cekada: Untrained and Un-Tridentine: Holy Orders and the Canonically Unfit (2003) mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/UntrainedUnTrid.pdf
@@kristin1659 I agree that the clergy SHOULD know the faith. But the seminaries were hijacked a loooong time ago. So if a young man in good faith entered he was either lied to or subjected to two "faiths" that were taught i.e. modernism and tradition/the true faith. +Williamson notes this about +Ratzinger's formation. We are living in bat crazy times:+( God bless~
Late 2nd Century Heresy that a select group of members of the Church claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit to correct the Church in Rome for lax penances for those who had abandoned the Faith during times of trials put on them by the Roman Empire. Eventually, the Montanist would hold that any lapsed Catholic could never be reconciled back to communion with God and the Church (so Sacrament of Confession/Penance is not needed, etc). Saint Irenaus of Lyons went to Rome to discuss it with Pope Eleutherius when was bishop of Rome (174-189). Saint Irenaus of Lyons stayed loyal to Rome, Tertullian who was one of the first Great writers in Latin and was orthodox till 200 AD then He broke from Rome after that time. I am a Catholic who is in communion with all Post Vatican II Popes but I have make a correction on Fr. Palma's understanding of Church History. The Montanist was a late 2nd century heresy and the Donatist started in the 4th century and like the Montanist they broke from Rome and argued that only a priest in a State of absolute Grace can offer the Sacraments, so even if a priest had a venial sin, it would make any Sacrament null and void. Saint Augustine wrote many papers against the Donatist position clearly saying the Sacraments was a property of the Church and priesthood itself and not whether the priest was in 100% state of grace.
I answered your question but the Mods deleted it. Montanism is a 2nd century heresy. It is not the same thing as Donatism which started in the 4th century.
Una cum is only a minor issue. Much more important is the following fact: SSPX of today is 100% compromised. They have de facto surrendered to the Modernist. Their masses must be avoided like a plague. It’s better to stay at home and pray there then to go their chapels.
I was confirmed by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais at St. Gabriel the Archangel in 2004. I recently started attending the SSPX in my area. I don't think Sedevacantist's are crazy. I have friends who have recently come back to the faith are Sedevacantist. They drive 3 hours one way to go to mass every Sunday. Once you go down the rabbit hole, there is no going back.
There's nothing crazy about preserving the Church's indefectibility by jettisoning a false ecumenical council (Vatican II). They have it right. I think SSPX is harmful to the traditional movement because it believes that liturgy is the primary battle ground, instead of doctrine. So you get "recognize and resist", a contemptible position.
@drywalllifetv6265 "1) If you don't have a valid AND licit Mass available to you, the Sunday precept ceases to oblige. 2) We go to Mass to please God. But the una cum Mass is unacceptable to God. God cannot be pleased by an act of worship offered in the name of a false Pope who happens to be the head of a false religion. The Mass is not only an act of the priest in persona Christi; it is also an act of the whole Church. Naming Bergoglio in the Canon legitimizes Vatican II, which is an implicit negation of the Church’s indefectibility. 3) Don’t follow people, follow principles. When analyzing different points of view, look for consistency." - Rev. Nicolas Despósito
Sedeprivationists should have no problem with una cum since they believe the designated pope holds the material office even though formally he has no authority from Christ to teach and govern. Otherwise the sedeprivationist bishops would be obligated to elect a new pope.
I went to a local Novus Ordo mass the other day where the visiting priest made the point that only 3/10 Catholics today believe in the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In my experience this is a popular statistic. When I was time for communion, a minister of Holy Communion ran out of hosts, gave an informal blessing and sent everyone in her line back to their seats instead of ushering them towards the priest standing next to her. It was a real tragedy to watch. I've also attended an SSPX Chapel. I'm definitely making an assumption but I'd be inclined to say that statistic is much better at any of their chapels.
The entire logic of papal infallibility is that heresy can never be a condition of communion with the Roman Church and its bishop. Otherwise you’d be forced to choose: schism or heresy. If you believe that a Roman bishop imposing heresy simply makes him no longer the “true” Roman bishop, then papal infallibility is a completely pointless doctrine.
@@prevatican2catholicshow that illustrates precisely my point. If it's a valid intra-Catholic epistemic route to judge the validity of a papal election based on the teachings of the pope, then papal infallibility has no practical use anymore. It makes a lot more sense within that paradigm to just admit that Vatican I was wrong, and the Roman Church does not remain undefiled from heresy unto the end.
I don't think i'm understanding you. Vatican I made mention of the necessary submission to the ordinary means of teaching from the Church. If Vatican 2, and numerous post-Vatican 2 documents are filled with error and heresies, that would contradict the Church's indefectibility, and that would go directly against Vatican I. How does the Roman Church remain undefiled if Vatican I is wrong? Doesn't that mean it has defected?
It doesn't matter because the Cassiciacum Thesis is heretical. The Catholic Church has always taught a heretic puts themselves outside the Catholic Church. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly states this in the context of a potential Heretical Pope ! It states the following: "For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot therefore be its head" Your "Thesis" position is even worse than R&R it is deceitful on one hand you state Bergoglio is not the Pope , the post-conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, then with a slight of hand you say Bergoglio still is a validly elected Pope and his cohorts, the heretical even more so diabolical Bishops and Cardinals are valid The 1968 invalidation of Bishops and Priests went beyond the destruction the Anglican's did and thus are equally condemned by Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, they also rejected Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis, where by his apostolic authority stated the essential requirements for validly Bergoglio was the first antipope to be ordained under the invalid rite, an ordination into this new Pagan religion and so goes for all priests and bishops The R&R at least make their position clear, your Thesis deception is buried in a ganglion of theological jargon not understandable by the lay person, this alone is anti Catholic but I'm sure Lucifer loves it! Berhaps this is why Bp. Dolan (may he rest in peace) stated that the thesis is a "theological error or savors of heresy"
If heretics are ipso facto deposed according to a misunderstood quote of St Bellarmine, why did canon law include a process for heretics? On the Heretical Pope (Rev. Damien Dutertre) mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Heretical_Pope_Dutertre_2022.pdf Totalism is "guts theology", with no foundation in theology, history or canon law.
@@prevatican2catholicshow This does not apply to those heretics who deny dogmatic teachings of the church or divine law. There is no process to permit someone to excused when they have denied the dogmatic teachings of the church More theological acrobats and obfuscation by the defenders of this heresy , just like the word totalist became a word more frequently used by Sanborn to describe those who don't agree with his heresy
@@prevatican2catholicshow Another thing, why doesn't Sanborn come out and state the thesis for exactly what it is ? Explain that it was th efforts of one man post VII to come up with a solution for the takeover by non Catholic masonic forces? Why does he not say that anyone (including his seminarians) are in no way obliged to accept it? Is this position explained to potential seminarians or does it come after fact ? It is explained that , as far as I know, every other traditional Catholic organization rejects this ?
Wrong, an impediment of divine law still needs to be juridically established to have juridical effects. Just like an invalid mariage which suffers of an impediment of divine law still needs to be declared invalid.
They've stated it as clearly as possible with very a detailed website, numerous videos and lengthy articles. It's not their fault that people who refuse to accept the conclusion cannot help but misrepresent the position and go on rants. Why don't totalists say they have no clue how to fix the crisis, especially as "divine intervention" will immediately break apostolicity?
Very good. I think a balance between emotion & reason. The higher emotions for music. Like charity---inspiration. They did not know if Bach was Lutheran or Catholic. He wrote music for both. Mozart's Freemasonry was not Illuminati "I want to rule the world" stuff. It was naturalism & humanism but still under the Natural Order.
@@prevatican2catholicshow your channel literally expresses the opinion that Francis is materally the pope. Secondly, you do damage to the visibility of the Church when you posit that the last "real" pope's jurisdiction has effectively died because all the bishops who received jurisdiction under him are now dead. It's not simply a interregnum. During an interregnum, the bishops don't lose jurisdiction, but it's continued because it was given to them from the late pope. And finally, I guess St. Robert Bellarmine, in your mind, was just an ignorant R&R guy when he wrote that it's lawful to resist a pope who is trying to destroy the Church.
"Visibility concerning the material - legal - human - juridical structure of the Church, is preserved in the N.O. hierarchy. Visibility, taken as the way to recognize the body of the faithful is preserved by Catholics who integrally profess the faith by adhering to sedevacantism." - Rev. Nicolas Despósito A material (possessing a valid legal title) pope lacks the form of the papacy (authority), so he needs to return to the Catholic faith to remove the obstacle to becoming a real, true, formal pope. As of now, he's no pope at all. St Bellarmine is always misquoted and taken out of context. Here's his real positions on a heretical pope: mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Heretical_Pope_Dutertre_2022.pdf
@@prevatican2catholicshow and how is that different from Lefebvre distinguishing the false "church" of Vatican II from the true Church? You're espousing Sedeprivationism though. 🤔
Because it is not a new church at all, but a new religion (Vatican 2). The false hierarchy retain valid legal (colored) titles but lose authority because of their intention to promulgate a false religion. Indeed, I support the Thesis by Bp Guérard des Lauriers.
I don't think Benedict xvi was worse then Bergoglio. In the beginning yes very modern but after like even paul vi saw how they were hoodwinked in what they originally wanted and eventually became more conservative. Bergoglio on the other hand is just pure evil!
At least Mr. B is open, Benedict XVI is a far more dangerous heretic, because he outwardly looks like a traditionalist and traps conservatives in Vatican II. Benedict XVI on the resurrection mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RazResArt.pdf
I would really recommend checking out the Cassicacum Thesis by Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. It's the best explanation of the situation by one of the best theologians of the 20th century (adviser on the dogma of the assumption and ghost author to the Ottaviani intervention). The Thesis website: thethesis.us And all the articles at: mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles
And I was raised in the mainstream Church and taught catechism for 5 or so year to 8th graders,at a really rather sound parish. Pound for pound SSPX sermons are better and generally focused not on Vatican II ( rejecting or defending it) but on how to live a moral life and how to save one's soul. I go to the SSPX on Sundays and the NO during the week. I fin the title of the short to ultimately be tendentious and misleading. In spite of an ambiguous allusion to SSPXers not knowing about things other than Vatican 2, most of your concrete examples were linked to Vatican 2 adjacent questions...collegiality etc.
@@prevatican2catholicshow Why? A superior who is in error actually should be resisted. Particularly in their governance and in all pastoral matters a Pope is NOT protected by papal infallibility as given in Pastor Aeternus. Popes can err an in fact have erred regarding matters like the validity of sacraments. Consider the time of the cadaver synod where several Popes in quick succession had ALL of the sacraments their predecessors performed declared invalid and then having this declaration of invalidity declared invalid. A Pope who even appears to contradict the past teaching is grossly imprudent and uncharitable in so doing, IN contrast we have either sedevacantism: because my father is evil he is not now and never was may father> Or my father is my father, therefor he cannot be evil. All offices of authority can be abused. They can also be perverted, that is used in opposition to their ends. The papacy is ordered toward preserving and passing on tradition. But tradition while involving the Pope is not order toward the preservation of his office. The authority of an office is the power to do or command X. It does not necessarily included a guarantee of success or even a protection against perverse use of the power. Infallibility, for good of for ill, is ultimately very limited. And while there is an obligation to obey non-infallible directives, this is superseded by the obligation to disobey evil directives.
Sorry, but none of this is backed up by anything concrete in terms of theology or canon law. I noticed you cited nothing to support yourself, just opinions. Recognize and Resist utterly destroys the papacy while formal sedevacantism (Cassiciacum Thesis) saves the papacy. A Pope can never teach heresy! That would contradict the Church's indefectibility. Honorius was condemned for his imprudence, not for his teaching heresy to the universal church. I would invite you to read the best takedown of R&R: mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RR_Dutertre_2022.pdf
@@prevatican2catholicshow I have heard of them but I find the the thesis of classical sedevanctism to be ultimately unconvincing in so much as I find pharisaical Judaism to be ultimately unconvincing. It is a series of logical arguments ultimately abstracted. If the Popes have not been valid, and many of the bishops one is reduced to truly Judaic Levitical analysis of whose order might be valid traced through this one and that. I wish them well enough, heaven knows these are trying times in the Church and have been for fifty years. Tell me succinctly what does sedvacantimsm offer the Church and honestly address its drawbacks. Recognize and resist puts one under a tension and raises the problematic potential of being infiltrated with modernism. What will sedevanctimsm bring the Church? Are all sedes untied? Do they all agree open whose sacraments are or are not valid? It is not Protestantism ( I have always disliked the loose use of the term) because it seeks to adhere to tradition and doctrine, but its potential for fragmentation and the near extinction of sacraments considered valid is problematic We shall all ultimately play the game and see who has the better of it. If in 20 years only the Sedes are left standing I shall have to tip my hat to them and see it as a sign that God has indeed favored them. If the SSPX dies out or is subsumed into the modernism in Rome I shall have to admit their path has failed. But if the answer is because this and this and this erudite theological refence .. I will say "yes yes O doctor of the law... I admit you are indeed a doctor of the law and well schooled in your craft to boot, but time and not your pen or podcast shall tell the providence of God. Time and what he permits shall tell tis tale." But its great mistake maybe but we shall preserve the honor of the papacy. The practical problems of a vacant seat not withstanding, time is better spent teaching the moral law and administering the sacraments. God will sort out the papacy and have a later Pope formally declare who was valid or not. Time spent doing A is time spent not doing B. I remember watching a few SSPX resistance sermons and thinking "with all due respect... please shut up about church politics and hierarchy and how the non resistance SSPX is bad and such..... quit wasting time and tell me how to save my soul how to live the moral life. So you have sermon on why faction X is the Church is wrong...OK what does that do for the average layman? Spend more time writing sermons about living the virtues or how to more fruitfully receive sacrament than talks about which scholar of the law thinks whose sacraments are valid or not.
@@prevatican2catholicshow But let me drive home the point. I am fifty and have little interest in losing hours on someone's interpretation of cannon law and nonbinding theological opinion. My own may not be greater but they are cheaper and lest likely me to cost me that precious commodity of time. Elevator pitch sede to me if you will but..... "my son of writing books there is no end"... and that goes double for theological debates. Tell we why I need sedevanctism. How will it help me practically in day to day life save my soul? Bother who thinks who is Pope!!! How can you help me save my soul in daily life. Now I would be inclined to look favorably upon some priest who ended up Sede... was not the late Fr Cekada a confirmed sedevacantist? Love to hear a sermon from him on the moral like. On why Pope X is not valid ... life is too short.
And yet they (SSPXers) are much batter catechized than the average Catholic. I do not say your average Novus Ordo attendee because most western Catholics are functional apostates who seldom attend Mass at all in any form. Novus Ordo Catholics generally know less about the faith ( beyond JPII), reject a good deal of what they do know about important moral laws, and know about Vatican II only that "it changed all that."
To break away from the papacy, but cling to tradition, has already been done for 1,000 years - Eastern Orthodox Churches. As the years pass, you then have to elect new bishops and "patriachs" / "metropolitan" - any title except pope. And does their theology evolve with science? They can't, because no single leader speaks for all the others. Yet their sacraments are valid, but they are no longer Catholic. Can they ever "re form" to make themselves Catholic? No, unless they rejoin the Catholic Church. The cut off branch does not become the main tree. At least the Orthodox have not splintered into 30,000 groups. And - to quote your own words - that is the logical conclusion. No, the papacy remains valid, BUT individual popes may be good or bad. It is Peter, after being called the Rock, then goes on to deny Christ 3 times, and "goes back" to fishing. Yet he remained "The Rock", until he came back. And so that's what we have - except Francis is closer to Judas than Peter; Peter was frightened, Judas made a deliberate decision. All of Francis decisions and doctrinal underminings are deliberate and planned, he's not frightened. He is still Pope, but Judgement Day will be terrible. Peter will return to reclaim the seat, but it won't be Jorge Bergoglio. And btw, the return of Peter may be outside our lifetime - Our Lady of La Salette said "there will be 2 rotten popes". So unless an earlier pope was deemed "rotten" by Heaven, it is possible the next pope will be worse. And then God strikes and does a cleansing. So stick with the real Catholic Church. We are more than just the Liturgy, important as it is.
No one is "breaking away from the papacy", total strawman. The actual argument is that is impossible for the Church to teach heresy. Vatican 2 represents a new religion and needs to be ignored, for the people promulgating it have no authority. Formal Sedevacantism (Cassiciacum Thesis) is the only position that SAVES the papacy.
@@prevatican2catholicshow Agree that V2 has brought all the chaos, and needs to be rejected. Especially about Islam worshipping the same God, what a joke. And a future good pope will expunge all of Bergoglio's writings and letter. But it takes a pope to do that - like previously (Pope Honorius??). But where will bishops come from the sedevacantist theory? In this short 10 years, 65% of cardinals have been replaced by Bergoglian liberals, deliberately of course. So if the chair of Peter has been empty since V2, after Pope Pius XII, there's not a single valid bishop / cardinal left alive to consecrate new and valid bishops. It is exactly the Orthodox argument - that Rome was in heresy and Constantinople held the true faith. 1,000 years later, and they are divided. It doesn't hold water.
You really need to check out the Thesis of Cassiciacum by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, it best explains everything. Present day cardinals still have the power to elect the pope (supplied jurisdiction). Misuse of said power is what keeps Vatican II going. Apostolic succession is preserved in this time of vacancy by the ability on the part of the Church to designate the next pope (the college of cardinals). Some have commented that you need validly ordained priests to be cardinals but this is factually wrong, holy orders are not required to be a cardinal. All that is needed is God's grace to convert them and Francis. And if you think the present hierarchy will never convert because they are too far gone, I would say God's grace is more powerful than anything. Look to St. Paul's conversion.
Clown masses are not the norm. In fact in my almost 60 years on this earth, I have never seen one. Yes some crazy priest in NYC may have done it. In fact, in 2024 record numbers of catechumens and candidates for full communion hit record numbers in France, England and USA across Dioceses. Even the SSPX reported this on 24 April 2024.
There's certainly an uptick in traditionalism but the overall picture is not good and the Novus Ordo is dying: "Around 29% of France’s population of 68 million identify as Catholic, but only 8% of Catholics are regular Massgoers. Roughly half of Belgium’s 12 million population identifies as Catholic, with 8.9% of Catholics attending Mass at least once a month." The fruit of Vatican II.
@@prevatican2catholicshow Not anything to do with Vatican II, the trends were already falling in France and after 2 World Wars. If you read some history you will realize as early as 1950 Mass attendance was only 25% in France. Trends after WW2 in Europe were already heading South after seeing 50-60 million people killed in Europe alone. Now in the USA, they were 75-80% in the 1950's when my parents were coming up (both born in the 1940's) but you are talking about still a largely ethnic Catholic areas in cities where peoples who were either Irish, Italian (my family history), Polish, Southern-German(Bavarians) lived together, as those groups economically grew and moved into suburbs and technology and social changes in the USA (Vietnam war and sexual revolution) and rise in secularism caused the collapse.
I'm glad we agree there has been a "collapse" (your words) in the Novus Ordo. Sorry, but your anecdotal evidence is weak, Catholicism was growing massively in the US under Pius XII until his death, this is proved by statistics gathered in the 50s.
@@prevatican2catholicshow No there has not been a collapse all around the world. France has been in decline, but the growth in Africa and Asia, exclusively and mostly post Vatican II is using the Missal of 1970. I am of European ancestry yes, but the Catholic Church is fully Catholic today and it not just in Europe. Today there are 17 Cardinals from sub-Saharan Africa (not many Catholic in North Africa, and Egypt which has about 10% Christian is Coptic Oriental Orthodox)
OK so the Novus Ordo is on life support in the western world, stalled and declining in South America (especially in places like Brazil), and there are fond hopes it'll take off in Africa (it won't and Fiducia Supplicans isn't helping) and Asia (don't see it). Meanwhile, as the video confirms, sedevacantism is really growing!
Does it mean that if the priest is spiritually offering the Mass with anti-popes, His Mass could be bad for us or invalid? And what if i go to Mass, but pray that this Mass is united with Saints and Holly Popes regardless of what the awarness priest has, which I cannot always know ?
No, it doesn't affect the validity of the sacraments. The solution is to go to mass offered by validly ordained sedevacantist clergy, where there is no doubt whatsoever.
1) If you don't have a valid AND licit Mass available to you, the Sunday precept ceases to oblige. 2) We go to Mass to please God. But the una cum Mass is unacceptable to God. God cannot be pleased by an act of worship offered in the name of a false Pope who happens to be the head of a false religion. The Mass is not only an act of the priest in persona Christi; it is also an act of the whole Church. Naming Bergoglio in the Canon legitimizes Vatican II, which is an implicit negation of the Church’s indefectibility. - Rev Nicolas Despósito
